If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The problem is not a Linux port, but an Api-Less technology ware developers cannot cut OpenGL suport. When you program a game with Unigine, you can compile it for all CPUs Cisc and Risc. It will run equally on GCC or on Windows alternative, but also will run on native Wine because Unigine does not use things that are not present in alternative C,C++ libraries. Regardless if you run Linux or Windows, you will have native both OpenGL and D3D choices,no back-ends, no D3D to OpenGL translations with slow graphics.

A company that released an engine that was so modular and so well-designed that its graphics renderer and audio renderer were completely interchangeable with third-party implementations (going so far as to have a third party add support for DirectX 11 in Deus Ex, an Unreal Engine 1 game) can't release UE4 with an OpenGL (probably 3.x or 4.x) renderer?! Come on.

Epic is even more advanced and experienced now than they were back in the late 90s. What's keeping them from continuing to create cross-platform code, a technique they learned how to do more than 14 years ago?

Assuming they have the code there, and their OpenGL renderer works (which seems to be the case according to the article), then all they have to do is sell the engine license to someone who's going to create a game, and then we (as a community) are responsible for convincing the licensee to distribute a Linux build. It's really that simple.

Don't be cynical about it guys. It just takes the right licensee with the right perspective to get a "yes". Imagine a canyon with two cliffs a great distance away, and the two cliffs have been gradually inching closer to one another as the years have gone by. Whereas before bringing your game to Linux was equivalent to jumping 20 meters (bring your pole vault or catapult or cannon), now it's about 3 meters. Hopefully the cliffs will literally meet in a few years' time, but right now it isn't a huge leap for a developer to decide to support Linux. This really seems to be the year of Linux gaming, although I think it's too early to call it the year of the Linux desktop. That, however, is not going to be far behind the deluge of games.

A company that released an engine that was so modular and so well-designed that its graphics renderer and audio renderer were completely interchangeable with third-party implementations (going so far as to have a third party add support for DirectX 11 in Deus Ex, an Unreal Engine 1 game) can't release UE4 with an OpenGL (probably 3.x or 4.x) renderer?! Come on.

Epic is even more advanced and experienced now than they were back in the late 90s. What's keeping them from continuing to create cross-platform code, a technique they learned how to do more than 14 years ago?

Assuming they have the code there, and their OpenGL renderer works (which seems to be the case according to the article), then all they have to do is sell the engine license to someone who's going to create a game, and then we (as a community) are responsible for convincing the licensee to distribute a Linux build. It's really that simple.

Don't be cynical about it guys. It just takes the right licensee with the right perspective to get a "yes". Imagine a canyon with two cliffs a great distance away, and the two cliffs have been gradually inching closer to one another as the years have gone by. Whereas before bringing your game to Linux was equivalent to jumping 20 meters (bring your pole vault or catapult or cannon), now it's about 3 meters. Hopefully the cliffs will literally meet in a few years' time, but right now it isn't a huge leap for a developer to decide to support Linux. This really seems to be the year of Linux gaming, although I think it's too early to call it the year of the Linux desktop. That, however, is not going to be far behind the deluge of games.

Of all the games that used UE2 or UE2.5 (the engines behind UT2003, respectively UT2004), how many were actually released for Linux? There is a Mac version of UE3, so the OpenGL renderer is there, still there is no sight of a Linux version of it.

Of all the games that used UE2 or UE2.5 (the engines behind UT2003, respectively UT2004), how many were actually released for Linux? There is a Mac version of UE3, so the OpenGL renderer is there, still there is no sight of a Linux version of it.

There was UT obviously, as well as Postal 2 and it's expansion (only $10.26 on Desura!) and older versions of America's Army. There was also a Devastation port that entered beta but then died with it's developer.

And I think everyone is being a little unfair to Micheal on this one - I actually found this to be a rather balanced article which clearly showed an understanding of the history of the issue. I wish more of the articles were like this.

I God damn hope so! I'm even willing to send $100 to any Kickstarter project (with Epic's blessing) that can port this particular engine to Linux. UE4 will be used for a lot of upcoming games (HUGE title), so getting the engine ported is I think ~ 50% of the work done.